Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:57AM
from the just-trying-it-out dept.

psycho12345 writes "German firm Medien Patent Verwaltung claims that in 2003, it revealed a new kind of anti-piracy technology to Warner Bros. that marks films with specific codes so pirated copies can be traced back to their theaters of origin. But like a great, hilariously ironic DRM Ouroborus, the company claims that Warner began using the system throughout Europe in 2004 but hasn't actually paid a dime for it."

Indeed. Like most other entities that try to force everyone else to "play by their rules" or "see things their way", their own rules don't apply to them. This is just like that gaming company that was using someone else's DRM-crack in their own game. I call shenanigans!

There are only four big companies left in music business. And a colleague of mine personally worked with the bosses of all of them, when they were still five.

And according to him, they actually ARE lying cocaine-snoring hooker-addicted thieves all alike. I mean for a fact.I would have no trouble stating that in public, as here it’s not illegal to state mere facts. I can easily prove them to be facts.:)

To be honest, I think your post is a "troll expressing a popular sentiment". Nonetheless, I feel you are inaccurate. (And thus, I am trolled...)

All "content" is based on common ideas and techniques. Be they musical, lyrical, dramatic, or technological ideas and techniques, they come from us, the general populace, and the previous authors, musicians etc.

So, you believe that, for instance, authors should not be paid by publishers, because the authors produce the "content" of the books that publishers print? The authors are abusing public cultural knowledge etc, while the publishers are making a physical good, right?

I find that an author paid is an author more prolific, since they can (ideally) use the time they'd

Well that's how feudalism works - one set of laws for the serfs and another set for the masters. We need to go back to the ideals of the revolution, where everyone was treated equally under the law. WB should be fined several million dollars.

Well that's how feudalism works - one set of laws for the serfs and another set for the masters. We need to go back to the ideals of the revolution, where everyone was treated equally under the law. WB should be fined several million dollars.

Close, but not quite. Warner Brothers should be abolished because no abstract entity should have the rights and privileges of being a human being if it cannot also be punished in the same way (including imprisonment and death).

Copyright violation is generally punished by a fine, however. What do they usually aim for, $100k per copy or something like that? So, $100k per theater that received an infringing movie per showing of said movie.

If a fat person calls you fat does it make you less fat? If the only witness to the murder you committed also killed someone does that make yours ok? If a pot calls a kettle black is the kettle any less so?

Is it really that or is it that copyright as implemented today makes chain of ownership difficult to track and manage and faithful compliance with license terms almost hopeless within most organizations?

Ok so Joe in assestmanagement wants to purchase OMG DRM Poines Manager 7 USA eddition; he wants to use it to seriales all ponies for distribution in the US. Legal looks over the license and approves the purchase, after asking Bob about his plans for the application. 5 years later Bob has left the company.

That's all well and good, except no where in TFA does it state they were using it anywhere before they learned of it in 2003*.

To correct your analogy, it'd be like Ted looking at OMG DRM Pawnies Organizer X from this other company, thinking "hey, this is pretty good", and then using it without licensing it.

*Actually, TFA doesn't say much of anything. Medien Patent Verwaltung filed suit against WB, but they listed one of WB's patents as the infringing patent, and now they will be refiling with the proper patent listed. So we don't really know at this time if they really are infringing on a patent of Medien Patent Verwaltung's.

Warner Brothers and other studios paid good money for those Congressmen, it's hardly fair that they should turn around and make laws that could be used *against* the studios. I may be old, but I remember a time when Congress used to respect its bribes.

It's well-documented behaviour. People generally expect others to think and act as they do. If you are a sociopath then you expect that people will try to abuse of any freedom that you give them, because you would do the same. You therefore implement draconian DRM because it prevents people from doing things that you would do in the same circumstances. It is not surprising to find these people acting as they expect others to act.

Media producers aren't in love with the idea of copyrights, they're in love with money. They just promote the concept of copyright when it benefits them to gain more money. If somehow copyrights were getting in the way of them getting paid, you'd see their lobbyists 24-7 trying to do away with them.

Business is in business to make money. Think of a large business as an amoeba that assimilates money. It doesn't have a conscience, just a rudimentary intelligence that drives it to move towards the money a

I'm not sure this is anything new. Map makers include fake streets. I believe a similar technique - making seemingly identical but subtly different documents - has been used in counter-spying to find the source of leaks.

I'm somewhat surprised this is allowed. Making a mistake is one thing, but purposely falsifying information that someone is paying you for (perhaps even specifically for the accuracy!) is another.

Is this one of those things that is actually allowed by law or just unenforceable because they can claim it was a mistake?

I assume you're referring to the maps thing...

This is generally done with street maps, where the information should be pretty much identical from one manufacturer to the next. If you can steal your competition's map, you save yourself all the time and effort of actually going out and looking up all the information. And everyone is going to show the same streets in the same places, so how do you prove that they stole your map data?

The answer is that you put in some crappy little 1-block dead-end streets here and there.

Nobody lives on those streets, because they don't exist, so you don't have to worry about incorrect address information showing up. You don't have to worry about giving people bad directions because they're dead-end streets, so nobody will route down them. Nobody is going to be hurt by these little streets in any way.

But if you suspect that your competition stole some map information from you, you just check to see if there's a Fake Street in Chicago. If the street is there, in the same place as on your maps, you know they stole the map data from you.

What if I'm giving directions to my friend. I look at the map and count the number of streets.
I then say, go down past 3 streets and take a left. Only in real life street number 2 doesn't' exist so he goes further down the road then he should have.

Many companies (naming no names) produce such truly appalling maps that it would be hard to tell the difference between deliberate mistakes and genuine ones.

IME, the only parts of the world where this is not a huge problem are where there already exists a very good mapping agency that licenses data to other companies (such as the Ordnance Survey in the UK).

Some devices call out instructions like "take the third left" when there are several intersections close together, so that "in 200 meters turn left" would be ambiguous.
Come to think about it, on my way home from work there is such a place where my GPS tells me to "take the third left" although there are no other intersections. They simply labeled two garages as roads. I always thought of this as a simple error in the map data, but now...

Read GP's response again. Using his example, the GPS will erroneously report "Take the third left" when it's actually "take the second left" because the nonexistent street introduced the counting error.

You can just diff two maps and see what's different. You're pretty screwed if one map is blatantly copied off the other. But barring that special case, you'd get a pretty accurate picture of wherever you're looking to go.

I'm assuming that the particular math used to encode the fingerprint in such a way that it doesn't die a horrible death the second it hits a lossy codec(which is pretty much assured before it hits the intertubes) or somebody get ahold of two distinct leaks and diffs them is probably substantially more novel than the basic idea of "add artificial differences to discover leaks".

Whether it is, or ought to be, patentable is not something I can really comment on; but I would strongly suspect that the actual method being employed is considerably different than historical examples in the same broad conceptual vein.

TFP (The Fine Patent) doesn't address the effects of passing their coding through a lossy codec (or any codec for that matter). It appears to be a fairly simplistic way of marking prints with unique identifiers. No mention is made of file sharing as something they're trying to address.

I believe a similar technique - making seemingly identical but subtly different documents - has been used in counter-spying to find the source of leaks.

Serial numbers are printed on currency & bonds, and appear on labels on most types of consumer electronics, automobiles, etc. This is the same basic concept. Uniquely identifying something isn't new or nefarious. I'm pretty sure all color printers 'hide' something in each print, and I wouldn't be surprised if digital cameras did too.

Camera's do indeed, the exif data for one - which by default contains the camera's serial number. Some add other formats of metadata as well. Generally this is not particularly nefarious in intent - the reason for exif data is to allow photographers to recheck what settings they had used for a photo at a later date, and allow the picture to be identifiable to the photographer for credit/copyright purposes.But it can be dangerous - political activist taking picture of police beating subject for example, may well not be aware that his camera's serial code (and depending setup - his name and contact details ) are embedded in the picture. Even just the serial code can be enough to trace you - if you paid with a credit card - it's all on record somewhere who owns the phone that took the picture.

For this reason there exists software (shipped for example with paranoid linux) that can strip exif data, either entirely or selectively for dangerous fields automatically. Or you can just do it on specific points using exiftool or one of the many gui's that interact with it.But suffice to say - if you don't KNOW that they do it, you won't know to strip out the information and the same information that is an incredibly useful photographers tool in one setting can be a very dangerous privacy or even safety risk in another.

Even just the serial code can be enough to trace you - if you paid with a credit card

Paying for anything with a credit card is, as we all know, enough for advertisers and everybody else to track you. That's why dope dealers often use the "minute phones" that you can pay cash for, or if they use a contract network phone like AT&T, use one they traded dope for.

I was going to say something about "camera's" but decided against it. Nobody's perfect, and few want unintended education, not even on slashdot.

More appropriate, it's common for studios to give each actor/crew member on a set screenplays with subtle changes in the text, typos, even unique kerning to find and punish whoever leaked the script to the wild. The more fan potential, the stricter the controls.

It's all a case of the priviliged mentality: they only see themselves as the aggrieved, and are blind to those they run roughshod over.

Really, I hope this turns into one of those messy public court snafu's that really grab public attention and cause a real raucus.

This can only benefit from all the publicity it can generate.

If it goes to court WB will probably have to open up their claims & records on piracy, counterfeiting, etc to examination and scrutiny. This could be a valuable crack in their "pandora's box" of exaggerated statistics.

If it goes to court WB will probably have to open up their claims & records on piracy, counterfeiting, etc to examination and scrutiny. This could be a valuable crack in their "pandora's box" of exaggerated statistics.

Purely out of curiosity, does anyone know of a single instance in any Western country of a major record or film company taking a member of the general public to court, the defendant putting forward a robust defence and the issue left to the court to resolve rather than either the defendant or the plaintiff eventually folding?

Why? They stole some DRM technology. As far as I know, they didn't do it because the company which sells the technology has region restrictions on where the technology can be used, or because they were just trying to get something they already paid for to work, or because they were using the technology for a purpose to which the copyrights paying-for-the-technology is meant to protect do not apply, or even because they feel that the company which sells the technology has an archaic business model which it i

I agree, but the popcorn eating non-geek who does not understand these finer nuances will for once have the piracy battle shoved into his face and this time it will not be WB that will be setting the terms for how piracy is being portrayed.

This was either blatant theft or an accounting error. That the thing being stolen or misfiled had the word "DRM" in its description is pretty much unrelated.

You are forgetting the other option, WB may honestly believe that the patent in question is invalid/unenforcable. Watermarking digital files has been around a long time, and as others have pointed out watermarking and other marking of physical goods has been going on for centuries. WB might be able to make the claim that this is obvious and therefore not patentable. Will be interesting to watch this unfold.

They didn't steal anything, they didn't copyright infringe anything. A patent troll company got a patent on something Warner Bros. not only did before the troll filed for a patent, but, in fact, something Warner Bros. PATENTED before the troll filed for a patent. And, in the troll's legal filling, their lawyer repeatedly cited Warner Bros. patent #, instead of their own.

What exactly are they 'pirating'? I see no mention that they are using any copyrighted material without permission. All I see is that they are supposedly using PATENTED technology (software). In Europe. Isn't the slashdot rallying cry 'you can't patent software in Europe and anywhere that lets you patent software is retarded'? So what is the story?

TFA isn't overly precise about what's going on. However, they do say that Warner is being sued for using their software without paying for it (ie. 'stealing' someone's 'IP', not giving back to the creators etc - basically the same stuff that the music industry says about file sharers). This looks the same as someone making a copy of Windows and using it without paying MS (or whatever).

Slightly confusingly, there's mention of patent infringement. This suggests that Warner went along to Medien and saw what they were up to. They then left, and made the exact same thing themselves and started using that. If this is what's actually happening, then it's a straight patent lawsuit, with Medien looking for license fees for Warner to use their ideas.

It may not be a software patent per-se - it is possible to patent some software in (at least some parts of) Europe - generally, it has to be something embedded - an "enabler" of a bigger invention, if you like. (You can't patent Windows in Europe, but you might be able to patent an intelligent flow valve with embedded PIC, for example).

No, TFA isn't overly precise, but it's also not that confusing. It is worth noting that they never once use the word "software". The entire article is about WB using MPV's "technology", and the linked Hollywood Reporter article discusses the whole thing as a lawsuit over an "antipiracy technology patent".

Also, if you read the complaint [blogs.com], it seems that the patent doesn't cover the software, it covers the actual watermark that is created on the film. The "invention" exists outside of any software, as it "is au

Read on Slashdot like a week ago a court decision in Germany that opened the flood gates to software patents in Europe, so Europe's about to be retarded, too, if that's the case. However, you're forgetting the other Slashdot rallying cries of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", "all's fair in software and war," and "HA-HA".

Isn't the slashdot rallying cry 'you can't patent software in Europe and anywhere that lets you patent software is retarded'? So what is the story?

It can now be completed by "because it leads to surreal situation like Warner Bros being sued millions for an imaginary crime against an imaginary property that is supposed to stop people committing an imaginary crime against other imaginary properties."

What exactly are they 'pirating'? I see no mention that they are using any copyrighted material without permission. All I see is that they are supposedly using PATENTED technology (software). In Europe.

Well, since they aren't on a boat, using threats of violence to get goods and hostages from other boats, they aren't pirating anything.

But the Warner would call what Warner did "piracy" if someone else did i to them, and this thread is about calling them out on their hypocrisy, so we're using their vocabulary.

Dear Warner Brothers
Your computer was scanned to contain illegal copyrighted material. Please pay an immediate fine of 2,000,000$ or legal action to the fullest extent of the law shall be engaged against you.

Irony only means hypocrisy in Greek. Since you're not speaking Greek, maybe you should look it up. An ironic event or action is something that has the opposite result as expected. It's not an action itself that's contrary to your expectations. If Warner Bros. takes actions to fight piracy, but it just makes piracy more prevalent, that's ironic. If Warner Bros. takes actions to fight piracy, but failed to license the technology, that's just hypocrisy. Or, it would be, except that Warner Bros. has a pat

I don't know, WB using this software to combat piracy but then getting sued for pirating said software themselves is pretty ironic - but as you said, it's rather unclear as to what's actually happening in this case.

I remember reading years ago that governments and business would create versions of a document for distribution that had minor differences. It would make it easier to identify the source of the document when there was a leak. In my less than humble opinion they re purposed that idea to do the same thing electronically.

1. Wouldn't it have been easier to mark up a random frame somewhere in the movie with information about the distribution point and then track it that way?

This technology is a more advanced version of that. See other posters for links, but I've seen some where the watermark is present on all frames and undetectable by the human eye. That will prevent pirates from cutting the "marked" frames and eliminating the watermark.

You wouldn't steal a handbagYou wouldn't steal a carYou wouldn't steal a babyYou wouldn't steal a policeman, and then steal his helmetYou wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet, and then send it to the policeman's grieving widowAnd then steal it again!

"Medien Patent Verwaltung" translates to the English "Media Patent Administration". They don't even concatenate it to one word, as one would expect from normal German grammar - looks like it came straight out of translate.google.com.

Now I wonder what the German word for "patent troll" would be.... Hmmm, the German wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] has various translations, I like "Patentparasit" best.

"Medien Patent Verwaltung originally claimed that Warner was infringing on patent 7,187,633, called "Motion Picture and Anti-Piracy Coding," but as The Hollywood Reporter discovered, the patent going by that particular name actually bears a different number and is held by none other than Warner Bros. MPV's attorney in New York acknowledged the error and said that the suit will be refiled with the proper information."

Is this funny that MPV's attorney mixed up patent name, or pathetic that MVP's attorney can'

The cue here is the fact that mankind slowly but surely approaches that deciding point in time where everyone owes everyone else, directly or indirectly, money, but is unable to pay. Just look at U.S. - trillions in debt, everything is just promised back in promises themselves. Everything is in a perpetual state of "I owe you" . That's hardly news, since, ironically, the very natural state of existence is owing eachother. The problem is converting this into real value, and demanding it back. That's the difference part.

Likewise, by virtue of unberable capitalism economy, where you need to maximize your profits at any cost to survive, it was only a matter of time before it came to this - the fight against piracy is so acute that even pirating anti-piracy IP becomes an option. The lesson to learn here is - if you can't live by your own rules, don't impose them on others.

The cue here is the fact that mankind slowly but surely approaches that deciding point in time where everyone owes everyone else, directly or indirectly, money, but is unable to pay. Just look at U.S. - trillions in debt, everything is just promised back in promises themselves. Everything is in a perpetual state of "I owe you" . That's hardly news, since, ironically, the very natural state of existence is owing eachother. The problem is converting this into real value, and demanding it back. That's the difference part.

Well now, the banks don't appear to owe me a dime.

They DO owe everybody an enormous and rapidly mounting spiritual debt, (and collection will take place in due course), but according to the rules, they rightfully hold all the cash. But "Render unto Caesar", right?

Now, the movement of power would certainly make sense if it were circular, (as you seem to suggest), but it has been hijacked into a pyramid shape with the banks nearer the top, and the slaves and livestock at the bottom with nobody but the Earth

You, the little people, have to do whatever we tell you to do. We are going to take your crops and your land and whatever else we feel like taking. You owe us everything. We're the landowners. We're the powerful, and the power we have was taken from you and we use it to take more power from you. Okay? That's how it works. You bottom, We Top. Got it?

There are NO rational arguments. You can spin them all day if you want. Point out our hypocrisies, call for legal action. We don't care. Hell, we encourage it! It keeps you idiots occupied, living under the illusion that this is some kind of level playing field. Ha ha! Yeah, go right on thinking that. -Believe that if you work hard enough that you too can be wealthy. Ha ha! Yeah, about that. . , truth is we only let a couple of people up that lottery ladder to keep you idiots mollified, and they're only the psychopaths and other favored sons who know how to play ball. And even they don't get into the inner circles. Now way! Obama and Gates and fucking Schwarzenegger are clowns in the court of the truly wealthy, (who, by the way were, the same families who really WERE stealing your crops a few hundred years ago). Those court jesters are there just to keep you retards happily taking the shit end of the stick. Ha ha! The serfs love their stupid little lotteries. What a bunch of inferior assholes you are! Ha ha!

Now where were we. . ?

Oh yeah. We can do whatever we want, steal, rape and pillage and you can do NOTHING. Got it?

This is novel in a way that the watermark is not spatial but temporal - it only minimally affects the surface of the image, but instead as the image changes over time, the watermark does too, containing much more information than the few points it presents per frame, and being much less obtrusive. Rather original and novel approach.

I think this is where they put the grid of brown dots in patterns across the middle of the picture. It's not quite like watermarking because it's only a couple frames here and there and it shows a unique ID pattern for each print. It's also more annoying for the viewer once you start noticing.